Everyone involved in the current debates on marriage should read this. For non-Christians, they would likely see that the various Christian teachings on marriage and sexual morals form a cohesive whole that is ordered for the common good. For many Christians, they would also benefit from seeing the connections between contraception, divorce, abortion, and gay marriage. Often these topics are argued in isolation, but Greydanus shows how a “contraceptive mentality” is the root of them all. Even those who are familiar with the arguments Greydanus employs would likely benefit from seeing them presented in such a comprehensive, balanced, compassionate, and concise manner.

The nature of Theology
Since you are an intelligent and scientifically minded person, I think you would benefit from knowing a little about how theology is done. There are some similarities between science and theology in that in both disciplines, there is a set of data and an attempt to understand and explain it. The data for science comes from observation and experimentation. The data for theology is divine revelation as it has been perceived by some human and communicated in some form that we can study and try to interpret it.

A dominant theme in the Judeo-Christian tradition is that God is Holy, which means that God is entirely unique. God is unlike anything in the universe; he is an entirely different order of being. The difference between God and the entire universe is greater the difference between the entire universe and an electron. You can take a bunch of electrons and other elementary particles and build a universe, but you cannot even begin to build God out of a bunch of universes.

So, this fact that God is unlike anything else in our experience causes us to doubt if we can even talk about God intelligently. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) says that we can because God created the universe to be a kind of revelation of his nature, and he created us in his image. The grandure of the universe hints at the grandure of God, even though God’s grandure is of an entirely different kind. The love of a father and mother for their child and the love of a husband for his wife both give us indications of God’s love for us, even though the love of God is entirely different from human love.

So, when Christian theology says that God is Trinity, we mean that the concept of Trinity is the best that we we’ve been able to come up with given what we are able to understand of what God has revealed to us.

Why believe in the Trinity?
The experience of the Jewish people throughout their history and their interaction with God deeply impressed upon them that there is only one true God, the creator and ruler of the universe. As we enter the first century, this belief is firmly embedded in the Jewish people, not only in Palestine, but also in enclaves dispersed throughout the Roman empire. The theological and moral beliefs of the Jews were so distinctive that it was not uncommon for people of non-Jewish descent to be attracted to their religion at that time.

Then along comes a carpenter’s son named Jesus. Jesus called God his “Father”, which in his day was unheard of. It implied an intimacy with God that no human had a right to claim. He demonstrated command over the forces of nature, and performed healings that had never been seen before. He told people that his sins were forgiven, which was considered blasphemous because a sin is an offense against God, so sins could only be forgiven by God. He claimed to be building the kingdom of God and that he would judge the world, which was also seen as claiming God-like authority.

The character and teaching of Jesus attracted followers, but his outrageous claims turned others off and ignited such fierce opposition that he was executed for blasphemy against God and treason against the Roman empire. This shameful defeat was a crushing blow for his followers, but amazingly, within a couple of months they were in the streets of Jerusalem preaching that the crucified man is the Son of God. God has vindicated him by raising him from the dead. A following sprang up in Jerusalem and soon spread throughout the Roman empire, despite persecution from Jewish and later Roman authorities.

So, the problem early Christians had to wrestle with is who is Jesus, and how does his identity square with what they already knew from the Jewish tradition they had inherited. They could not reject that tradition because it had been endorsed by Jesus, but how to reconcile Jewish monotheism with the divine characteristics and claims of Jesus? Also, how can a divine being be so human?

The data pointed to the one Jesus called “Father” as being God, but also Jesus is the “Son” who came down from heaven. Jesus also taught about the “Holy Spirit”, who also seemed to have divine attributes. Jesus also taught the apostles to baptize new believers in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which implied an equality among the three. So we appear to have three divine beings in a religious tradition founded on the idea of one God. Various schemes were devised that tended to weaken one side or the other of the equation, and these were rejected. Even though they couldn’t figure it out, the Christians knew that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and there is only one God.

What was eventually worked out is that the “substance” of God (Greek physis, Latin substantia) is one. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “consubstantial” or of one substance. We don’t know what the substance is, but substance is what we call the thing about God that is *one*. However, in the one substance there are three “persons” (Greek hypostasis, Latin persona). We use the word “person” a lot today, but it was not a common word in the first century. They would have refered to a human individual using the word for “man”, “woman”, or “human” in their language. “Person” was more of a theater term, coming from the word for the mask used in Greek theater. The mouth part of a Greek theater mask was constructed like a megaphone so that it amplified the voice of the speaker. The word “person” came to mean “one who speaks”. So, we don’t know much about what differentiates the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because they are of the same substance, but we do know they speak to each other, so we call them persons.

The Nature of Jesus The understanding of Jesus grew alongside the concept of the Trinity. What developed was the understanding that the three persons of the Trinity have eternally existed, but ~2000 years ago, one of the persons, the Son, took on human nature in the womb of the virgin Mary. In his person, he united God and humanity, thus building a bridge between God and the human race, making it possible for humans to know God and be made like him.

Therefore, it is believed that Jesus is God the Son who has taken on a complete human nature. The Son sacrificed nothing of his divine nature in order to become human, and there is no part of our human nature that he did not take on, except for sin, which is not a part of original human nature. So, when we see Jesus praying to the Father, we see God the Son, as a man, speaking to God the Father. As a man, Jesus is giving other men and women an example of prayer. As God the Son, his prayer is perfect communion with the Father. And, as we follow Jesus, by grace we become partakers of his divine nature, and our prayer can approach the perfect communion that Jesus has.

I will stop this long post at this point. I hope it helps.

In this first picture, I represent some arbitrary things in our world as different sized and colored balls. These could be subatomic particles, planets, or even human beings. The arrows pointing between them show causal relationships between them. At the subatomic level it would include the electrical and nuclear forces which particles exert on each other. For stars, planets, and moons, it would primarily be the force of gravity. Between people, it would be words and deeds by which we influence each other. In all of these ways, one thing causes something to happen to another thing. These are all secondary causes. Notice that the arrows are double headed, which indicates that the influence is almost always to some extent mutual. For example, in the case of a pebble on the surface of the Earth, the Earth exerts a gravitational pull on the pebble, and the pebble also exerts a gravitation pull on the Earth.

The second picture is just the first one as seen from the side. It shows another dimension, which was not clear in the first picture, where we see that God is affecting all of the things. This is the primary cause, which gives the thing its existence as well as its ability to function as a secondary cause. Notice that the arrows only point in one direction. This shows that God causes the things of the universe, but they have no causal effect on God. God is completely uncaused.

It is this role of God as primary cause of everything that is behind the Christian practice of thanking God for every blessing, even when we know where it came from. For example, when I was a kid, I thought it was strange that we thanked God for our food, when I knew good and well that my mother had cooked the food, which she bought from the grocery store, with money earned by my father. I knew the food in the store came by various process ultimately from plants and animals raised on farms. I also knew about the natural process behind the growth of these plants and animals, and I saw no reason put God in the mix. Now I know that God is behind every little part of that process by which we receive our food.

There is a blessing said by the priest in every Catholic Mass (according to the post-Vatican II liturgy at least)  which I think illustrates this.

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the bread we offer you:
fruit of the earth and work of human hands,
it will become for us the bread of life.

In this little prayer, we first see God acknowledged as Lord of all creation, the implication being that it is because he is the creator. We have the bread due to God’s goodness, including his continual work as primary cause. “Fruit of the earth” acknowledges the natural processes that act as secondary causes to bring forth the wheat used to make the bread, and “work of human hands” acknowledges the human agents also involved as secondary causes. Finally, the last line refers to the sacramental action of God, through the priest as secondary cause, that will make the bread the Body of Christ, food for eternal life.

God is the primary cause of everything. This not only means that God caused things to exist at the beginning, but he continually causes their existence, and gives them the ability to do what they do. This idea appears in Scripture: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28, where Paul is actually quoting a pagan poet), and “in him [Christ] all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17).

All of the matter and energy in the universe is caused to exist by God. If God were to cease causing them, they would cease to exist. Particles of matter and energy have the ability to interact with each other, and so they act as secondary causes. These secondary causes act not only at the level of physics, but also at the chemical, biological, and human level. I might say something that causes someone to do something that they would not have otherwise done, for example.

Everything that is studied by modern science is at the level of secondary causes, and science has done a good job of describing how these secondary causes appear to interact. However, nothing that science has uncovered has affected the philosophical need for a primary cause, nor has it found anything to disprove it. The concept of a primary cause is metaphysical, and outside the bounds of modern natural science.

The first example is an article I found today called  “Gangbang Interviews”and “Bikini Shots”: Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem. The Silicon Valley technology culture is very secular, but that hasn’t prevented it from falling into some very bad treatment of women. The second example concerns sex trafficking in China. I heard a story on the radio, so I did a search on the topic, and this article,  Gendercide and the Cultural Context of Sex Trafficking in China, was representative of what I heard on the radio. Although the Chinese has not succeeded in completely wiping out religion in their country, it is dominated by an atheistic regime.

While I’m not denying that there are religious people mistreating women, and that they will often try to use their religion to justify their actions, but I do not believe that Christianity, at least not Catholic Christianity, is the cause. Rather, Christ promoted the dignity of women in a Greco-Roman world that treated women like property. Churches which are faithful to Christ do the same.

I think the doctrine of creation is central to this debate. If there is a God, and he made the universe and each of us, then the religious perspective is important. However, if there is no God, or God is defined as something less than the sovereign creator, then any religious perspectives are at best of secondary importance.

Belief in the doctrine of creation began to decline in the mid 19th century, with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species being the watershed event. However, although Darwin’s work is central to this decline, it is only one of many scientific theories and discoveries that changed our view of what the world is, and how it came to be the way it is.

Because this new way of looking at the universe came by means of scientific study rather than divine revelation, theology, or philosophy, it was easy for people to come to the conclusion that there must be some kind of conflict between science and religion or science and philosophy. The extreme view that is on the rise today is that science has either disproved the existence of God, or at least eliminated the need for God, the assumption being that God was something that humans made up in order to explain things they could not understand.

Although some religions have very specific teachings about the age of the Earth or the process of creation which are at odds with current scientific views, I don’t see a conflict with the findings of science and the claims of Catholic Christianity. I have read and have spoken with priests and members of religious orders who are also scientists and science teachers who not only think that there is no conflict, but the believe that the findings of science harmonize so beautifully with the Catholic faith that the study of science is beneficial to the faith.

My plan is to write several posts as I think and read about this question. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, so ideally there will be some discussion. I hope this exercise will be a learning experience for myself as well as an opportunity to share what I have learned with others.

I am convinced that we Christians must be very careful how we address the issues of the so-called culture wars. As Christians, we have a prophetic responsibility to speak the truth of the Gospel. We must do our best to show the difference between the way that leads to life and the way that leads to death. If people are going to choose a path of self-destruction, it should not be because they didn’t know any better.

As citizens, we have a duty to play our role in the political process, whether that is voting, supporting a candidate, or even running for office. The political world is messy, and I’m tempted to avoid it, but I force myself to stay informed and vote my conscience, even though the alternatives are often limited.

However, our utmost responsibility as Christians is to pray, draw close to God, and live a holy life. As Peter Kreeft says, “if you want to change the world, be a saint.” Engaging the culture in the context of Christian discipleship implies that our interactions with our opponents should be filled with love. One aspect of Christian love is that it “bears all things,” including being misunderstood and unappreciated. The reality is that those who oppose us will likely not understand us, and will treat us unfairly. We can’t let this bother us, and we certainly cannot respond in kind.

Finally, we should not worry about winning or losing. We have the sure hope that Christ will be victorious in the end, but we don’t know when that will be. There is no guarantee from God that our culture will not significantly decline or maybe even disappear before that happens. I think putting our hope in the ultimate end rather than insisting on an immediate win helps counter the temptation to compromise our message or our methods. We must be faithful in our responsibilities, and let God take care of the results. Our example is Jesus Christ, “who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross” (Heb. 12:2). He knew that the mistreatment he suffered would result in the salvation of the world.

In conclusion, we must do what we can in Christian love, and if things turn around, we will have God to thank for it. If things do not turn around, we can also be assured that anything we might suffer in the process of defending the truth will be used by God for the ultimate salvation of the world.

It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

This copy of The Little Office is dual-column, English on the left, and Latin on the right. The Latin text has changed very little since the Middle Ages, and the English Biblical texts come from the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that dates back to the 16th century. It has a very traditional feel, and the language is very beautiful. It is not difficult to read, but it would not be mistaken for a modern translation.

Until I got this book, I had been praying with the Liturgy of the Hours, which is a modern reworking of the Divine Office created after Vatican II. While comparing the Liturgy of the Hours to my new Little Office book, I came to the following conclusion. It appears to me that the Liturgy of the Hours does the best it can to remove all traces of the Middle Ages from this ancient form of prayer, including all traces of Latin. Even the traditional Latin names of the prayers, such as Matins, Lauds, Terce, None, Sext, and Vespers, have been replaced with Office of Readings, Morning Prayer, Midmorning Prayer, Midday Prayer, Midafternoon Prayer, and Evening Prayer.

I have the feeling that many Catholics in the 1960s and 70s were ashamed of how much the Catholic Church had held on to its Medieval roots, and they took the changes that came out of the Second Vatican Council as license to jettison everything that was the least bit Medieval.

At the root of this Medieval shame seems to be the belief that the Middle Ages were an unmitigated low-point of human history. I strongly challenge that belief. From what I’ve seen so far in my exposure to Medieval writings and history is that the Middle Ages, like every age of history, has its faults and blind-spots, but it also has much of great value.

There is a Cistercian monks at the Abbey which runs the school where I work who recently retired after many years of teaching history at University of Texas at Arlington. He has come to me a few times with some computer questions, and has talked to me about my graduate work at University of Dallas. One day he told me I should study the Middle Ages because that was the age in which faith and reason worked together. I think we need to discover how to bring that aspect of the Middle Ages to our world today.

This story illustrates that the whole subject of modernity is complicated, requiring thoughtful and careful examination. Knee-jerk reactions in either direction are problematic.

Mother Kathryn Joseph sat down to have it out with [her brother] on the whole sedevacantism issue. She recalled, “I had an epiphany in one sitting. I realized that I had been wrong for 35 years. But I was happy to have been proven wrong.”

via Sedevacantist Sisters Reunite With Church | Daily News | NCRegister.com.